Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSICWP:DSMUSIC

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Music. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

Video on Trial season 2

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all of the content on this page is built from the MuchMusic website which makes the show. In order to justify a split from the main article, we would need WP:SECONDARY coverage on this season. Otherwise its a WP:BADFORK.4meter4 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's more of a plot summary than anything, which you can make by watching the episodes. Article seems fine, one episode got an award nomination, that's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: we have an article on the series which covers the award. Why would we need a spinout on an individual season built almost entirely from WP:PRIMARY sources with no WP:SIGCOV? That doesn't seem to be a policy based decision.4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be in the same model as every other episodic television series article on here, there's a template and everything. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or I suppose a redirect to List_of_Video_on_Trial_episodes would be fine Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The model is fine as long as there are sources covering the season as a whole or parts of the season in SECONDARY sources. The Sopranos season 2 for example cites many by-lined newspapers articles. It's fine to build this type of page as long as it is not predominantly sourced to primary materials. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failing WP:CSC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual season are not necessarily notable, apart from an episode nominated for an award, I can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG. A passing mention of a nomination of an episode does not really confer notability for an entire season when there is barely any coverage. All the other seasons could also reasonably be deleted as well, and if necessary, the list of episodes may be merged into List of Video on Trial episodes. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Trial season 1

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a television series that lists the TV series itself as its source. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly the TV show itself has dubious notability. Olliefant (she/her) 17:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual season are not necessarily notable, and I can't find anything to safisfy WP:GNG. therefore delete. I'd suggest the same for the other seasons. If necessary, the list of episodes may be merged into List of Video on Trial episodes. Hzh (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Third series. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now Winter 2006 (Australian series)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cited entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources. Not clear a compilation album of this type is encyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both the urls need archive links added as they no longer direct to their original destinations. A platinum cert and charting at number 12 would both go toward WP:NALBUM, if supported by WP:RS. Nil🥝 04:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would need something other than WP:PRIMARY sources as well. Fundamentally, we need to demonstrate that there is WP:SECONDARY coverage of some kind.4meter4 (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Third series: Fails WP:NALBUM. No SIGCOV in RS. paintdvd ☎ 18:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Third series as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Cupcakke. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bakkery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM; only found 1 article about the album in a BEFORE, the others are just passing mentions. Should be redirected to Cupcakke. paintdvd ☎ 21:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Illinois. paintdvd ☎ 21:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cupcakke, per nom. To my surprise, I wasn't able to find any SIGCOV either—just a passing mention on Billboard and an article on SoapCentral, which appears to be unreliable. The album has been out for a week now, and notable albums tend to have received a handful of reviews by that time, so notability seems unlikely to emerge in the near future. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cupcakke: I also couldn't find any additional notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cupcakke. Made a source assessment below. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 05:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Redirect to Cupcakke per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table by Rafaelthegreat

Source: https://music.apple.com/us/album/the-bakkery/1846990696 is non-independent because it is from Cupcakke, it is unreliable due to opinions and non-independent coverage on the summary, and has neutral coverage due to the summary mostly taking about the "awesomeness" of the subject. Overall, it does not count for WP:GNG.
Source: https://x.com/CupcakKe_rapper/status/1982535698453275075 is non-independent because it is a social media post from Cupcakke, it is unreliable due to being a user-generated content, and has significant coverage about her albums but neutral coverage about she making it in just 7 weeks. Overall, it does not count for WP:GNG.
Source: https://genius.com/Cupcakke-one-of-my-bedbugs-ate-my-pussy-lyrics is unknown to be independent or non-inderpendent, has no consensus of the reliability but could possibly be user-generated per WP:RSP, and has poor coverage about the dates and mostly talks about the lyrics. Overall, it does not count for WP:GNG.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Garling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This technology and music journalist seems to fail WP:GNG, the only sources I could find were all written by him, there doesn't seem to be anything about him written by a reliable secondary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, Technology, and United States of America. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His work has minor brief engagement in SECONDARY sources (for example [1]). He's cited or quoted in a number of book sources from academic publishers, but not to the level where I would say it is WP:SIGCOV of him or his work. Until there is something more in-depth I don't think we can support an article. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Wired (magazine)~~: Not independently notable from his work at Wired. Nil🥝 01:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil NZ: I would oppose that. For one, he has been a prolific journalist with the San Francisco Chronicle (probably wrote more for them than Wired; and was with SFC after he left Wired) and has also contributed to The Atlantic and NPR among other outlets. I wouldn't say he is clearly associated with a single publication.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Thanks for that; you wouldn't even know that he left Wired (or wrote for SFC) from the state of this article, but I see now that there's been nothing on his author page there since 2015, and his LinkedIn says he's "Freelance". In that case I'd support a Delete. Nil🥝 03:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of articles by him, none about him. That's the issue, a lack of sourcing. I don't see any sources we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several passing mentions and interviews turn up, but nothing that I would consider significant coverage. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-have to agree mostly with nom s points for AFD, lacking of enough SIGCOV sources to suggest standalone notability even with additional searches.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hartke Systems

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Manufacturer of amplifiers. Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Page is promotional, undersourced (sourced to the company's own distributor, in fact) and BEFORE shows little else out there. The people who use the amp do not confer notability upon its manufacturer. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete pernom. Mag2k (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Striking out disruptive vote - Mag2k left several "Delete pernom" (sic) in mere minutes. Geschichte (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a search, all I could find were two reviews of their amplifiers, but no SIGCOV of the company itself to satisfy WP:NCORP. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 11:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in-depth found in muzines or World Radio History either. I'd suggest merge to the parent company Samson Distribution if we had an article on them, but we don't. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV also there is a lot of WP:SELFSOURCE on the page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. It sounds promotional and mostly uses primary or self-published sources. No independent or reliable coverage found to show notability. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Justin Timberlake discography. (non-admin closure) Z E T A³ 00:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12″ Masters – The Essential Mixes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. First, the sourcing is a nightmare, mainly consisting of primary sources. Second, the only piece of coverage is one AllMusic review. In this case, I suggest a redirect to Justin Timberlake discography. paintdvd ^{talk to me} 23:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. paintdvd ^{talk to me} 23:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Does not meet WP:NALBUM as there is a lack of reliable independent sources about this album so is not notable enough for it's own article. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify where I want the redirect to be redirect to Justin Timberlake discography. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Justin Timberlake discography per nom and GothicGolem29. There is no suitable content to merge and the target is not formatted to accommodate extraneous details so simply converting to a redirect is best. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist discography. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 13:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brahms's Third Symphony in popular culture

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails MOS:CULTURALREFS according to Opus33's discussion. Absolutiva 07:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva 07:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 10:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References should not be included merely because they exist, and if the sourcing for a given reference is only enough for a simple mention, it doesn't merit inclusion [..] at all (MOS:POPCULT). Currently most of items are completely unsourced, but those that remain are still not supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth (MOS:POPCULT). More broadly, a well-crafted article [...] on a topic’s cultural representation should be based on reliable sources that address the topic broadly (WP:TRENDSBEFOREEXAMPLES). From a search of the literature, we simply don't have reliable sourcing on the symphony's impact on popular culture to base this list on, so this non-encyclopedic content should simply be removed (MOS:TRIVIA) per WP:NOT. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please see my Talk Page discussion. Opus33 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm guessing this refers to the following comment at Talk:Brahms's Third Symphony in popular culture#Delete this?:
  This article arose, I believe, as a "depository", intended to let pop culture fans put in whatever they liked without overwhelming the basic coverage of the symphony.
  But that was before we had the policy now given in MOS:CULTURALREFS, which has led to the disappearance of pop-culture sections from much of WP, at least the classical music part of it. In light of the policy that is now in place, would it not be sensibly to delete this article as well? I'm curious what others think. Opus33 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  I'm copying it here since the talk page will be deleted if the article is (as seems likely at the moment). TompaDompa (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. Views are split between keeping the article outright or merging with another, principally Trebor (composer). As these can be both be done by simple editing, without administrator assistance, there is no further need for a deletion debate, as there is definitely not any consensus to delete the article outright. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borlet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single, non-publicly accessible source. Googling to find other sources only results in sites which link back to this same page. No WP:NMUSIC or WP:V Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor but notable figure, with highly authoritative source. A web-only search will not produce acceptable results in this area. It should not have been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists which is for visual artists only. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a little more as to how it meets our notability standards? Is there really WP:SIGCOV? The very short stub essentially says "We know very little about him, including his name and identity. We can confirm he composed between 1 and 7 compositions." Is this really enough to support a stand-alone article? I'm struggling a bit to see the encyclopedic value of a short stub so devoid of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally apply exactly the same standards to medieval and earlier figures as to contemporary ones. The article probably contains everything that is known about him, which obviously is very little indeed. He was considered important enough to be included in the standard reference work, which in itself is probably enough for notability. There are thousands of comparable examples. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that its not likely to come across a 2025 New York Timess feature on a subject like this, but I'm also not convinced that mere mentions like that are enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Are you alluding to some guideline I'm unfamiliar with or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His own entry in the standard encyclopedia on the subject is not a "mere mention"; it's just that next to nothing is known, so the biographies there and here can't be any longer. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I'll reword my stance accordingly: I don't believe an entry in a standard encyclopedia is enough to establish any sort of notability standards, particularly when said entry is devoid of any real substance because nothing is known. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability is substantiated here. I checked GScholar just now and the mentions for Borlet are essentially all the same as the mentions for Trebor (composer) because they're believed to be the same person. Therefore at the very least I think a merge with Trebor is in order, but given that even the sources I can find for that article are essentially "some compositions exist which are attributed to someone called Trebor" I don't think we have notability in a Wikipedia sense here at all, so I think deleting both Borlet and Trebor (which I've also made an AfD for) makes sense. Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is where I'm leaning too. I could technically see creating a redirect to Trebor, which pretty much already covers the (very little) verifiable information about Borlet, but the argument for Trebor's notability is pretty weak too. There's definitely not enough here for 2 standalone articles, though at least Trebor has verifiable information in it... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against a merge, but you popular culture types need to understand that notability is not affected by whether there is information online or not. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast aspersions - no one has asserted sourcing needs to be online thus far in the discussion. That's not the reason you're getting pushback. You're getting pushback because you aren't actually citing or invoking anything. You just keep making WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSNOTABLE WP:ATAs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is the entry in the references section; there are books mentioned in Further Reading. Google Scholar has a considerable number of books with significant coverage on him; they include https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-music-history/article/abs/an-episode-in-the-south-ars-subtilior-and-the-patronage-of-french-princes/4F5EA81CC0345A850C971836859832A6 ; https://search.proquest.com/openview/d9810dfdb21e258c9b6bc2f87da5f874/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y The polyphonic virelai "He tres doulz rossignol" attributed to him is one of the most notable pieces of the genre. Plenty of other sources exist; https://www.persee.fr/doc/caief_0571-5865_1979_num_31_1_1185 and so on. e.ux 20:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV necessitates that the sources in question address the subject 'directly and in detail.'

The first source is about how these Medieval French sources have been preserved, and the latter literally says its aim is only to transcribe the unpublished chansons of the Chantilly manuscript.

To my eyes, the only relevance of these sources to Borlet/Trebor are that he is passingly mentioned within them as composer of some of these pieces, which is pretty plainly trivial coverage. The third source you've linked is a French-language source which I'm not equipped to assess.

Could you be more specific about how you feel these sources demonstrate in-depth, specific coverage of the subject? Athanelar (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They analyse his work -stylistically-; some dwell on his possible identification with other musicians -various authors support more or less assertively and with different arguments the Trebor hypothesis. These are no passing mentions, nor trivial coverage, and plenty of other sources exist. But as creator of one of the most notable virelai of the time, he could, one could argue, meet the specific notability guidelines anyway -like Wikipedia:CREATIVE; it may remain a short article -but it is not that short-;- if everyone agrees a redirect and merge to Trebor is better, it might be an acceptable solution too, but things are clearer this way -and fairer- imv; outright deletion would be absolutely inappropriate, I think; coverage on him in various other languages abounds, fwiw- and please also check the information in https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM065.HTM e.ux 20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also meets WP:COMPOSER..."Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music." e.ux 20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trebor (composer). I came to this discussion via Trebor, who I strongly believe is notable: see my comments at that AfD. I think Eva's point on WP:NCOMPOSER carries some merit given the inclusion in Grove, so I'm somewhat opposed to outright deletion. However, from my literature review, Borlet clearly receives much less coverage than his doppelganger. There is also a lot of overlap – they may be the same person after all, and as such the vast majority of potential sources with more substantial coverage speak about Borlet in relation to Trebor. I do note the fairly imposing further reading section but, of the Chantilly scholars that speak of Borlet, Plumley, Brown, Goméz, and Reaney all treat him this way, while Earp and Apel (1 and 2) only give scarce passing mentions. So I end up here offering a middle ground with a merge: not on notability grounds or as an ATD, but per WP:OVERLAP. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from A Ballade for Mathieu de Foix: Style and Structure in a Composition by Trebor

"On Trebor/Robert/Trebol/Borlet, see especially Maria del Carmen Gomez Muntané, La Música en la casa real catalano-aragonesa durante los años 1336-1432, vol. 1 : "Historia y Documentos" (Barcelona, 1977), pp. 99-101.[2] The Chantilly manuscript attributes only a single realistic virelai to Borlet ("He tres doulz roussignol"), whereas Trebor is assigned six ballades and no virelais.

Since stylistic differences between genres are at least as great as stylistic differences between individual composers, it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that the composer of "He tres doulx roussignol" was or was not the same as the composer of the six ballades on stylistic grounds alone. No music is known to be attributed either to Robert or to Trebol."

So two scholars say Borlet and Trebor are different persons. A merge wouldn't be appropiate. 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)~ — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As noted above, I took both the Brown and Goméz sources into consideration when drafting my !vote. The justification for my arguement is not identity, as you infer. Most scholarship on Borlet is related to the possibility they were the same person: this shows they are "related subjects that have a large overlap" (WP:OVERLAP), which is enough reason for a merge on its own. Also, you are misreading the sources. Brown claims it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that [Borlet] was or was not the same as [Trebor] (emphasis added). His phrasing leaves open both the possibility that they are connected or are not, which your conclusion incorrectly parses. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't need hard confirmation on this to warrant a merge or mention there, just that reliable sources cover them together, which they clearly do. The complexity of the situation can be covered in the prose. It'd be pretty easy to cover at the forefront of the article too, considering the lack of content. Even the sloppiest of merges wouldn't escalate the resulting article out of stub status... Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just clearly a case of consulting Google over subject-matter expertise. Any merging that might arise can and should be handled separately from this discussion on the talk page, based on scholarly consensus. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Trebor (composer) - basically I agree with UpTheOctave!'s analysis of the sources, and think that readers will be best served by a single article that covers the composer(s) and the scholarship surrounding whether they are the same person or not. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jolielover♥talk 18:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor per previous discussion.

Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor (composer): Users UpTheOctave!, Eva UX, Sergecross73 and others have made good arguments about enough scholarly debate (although not enough historical evidence), so I think a deletion is not warranted. i agree that a merge with info on the identity controversy would be much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG as the composer is included in several music reference works as well as in scholarly books/journals. Because scholars do not agree that these two composers are the same person, editorially I think it is better to keep them separate. Lastly, any person covered with an entry in any published encyclopedia will pass our criterion for inclusion per WP:5P1. Our foundational goal is to cover the sum of all human knowledge and pillar one specifically grandfathers in content covered in encyclopedias and specialized encyclopedias. Its an anathema to our founding mission to exclude any content published in any encyclopedia (unless there is some reason to believe its unreliable) as principally our founding goal is to gather all topics covered in all reference works into a single location. In short, if a topic is covered in an encyclopedia we cover it too. Period.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benümb / Pig Destroyer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM; no notability aside from one Exclaim! article about the album. No obvious WP:ATD since it's a collaboration between two bands. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 03:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 03:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe Pig Destroyer discography since that band has a majority of the album, is the one that has a chronology box and a discography page that includes this album? Katzrockso (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: A redirect would be unhelpful to readers in this situation per WP:XY:
Redirects…that could equally point to multiple targets are commonly deleted, as there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching for. In these cases, search results may be more helpful, allowing the reader to make the decision.
Left guide (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "delete" !vote in light of sources presented below. I can't vouch for their reliability, but want to allow others a chance to review, and don't want to stand in the way of consensus. Left guide (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per WP:SPINOFF, as there is nowhere to put the information without duplicating it, with this article serving as a good reference to the album from the other bands on the split itself. I would generally say this should be merged however there is nowhere for this to go. Debatably weakly notable per the non exhaustive small list of sources i found, unless I'm missing something. With any inherited notability from the two bands, I'd say it's good enough for mainspace, with work. [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] DarmaniLink (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM or redirect to Pig Destroyer discography. We shouldn't keep something just because it's hard to choose a redirect target. The sources aren't there to justify a stand alone page.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources boil down to CMJ magazine, really, and that's not as in depth as you'll need. No evidence of a chart position, no sigcov so delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Denman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bass player that does not seem to be notable outside of membership of Sade. Prod declined due to many incoming links from Sade related articles. I think the Bass Player source is strong, but I cannot find additional sourcing that contributes notability to push the subject past WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 02:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I partially stubified this article, and it has so many incoming links. He's had a notable career both before and after being part of Sade's band. The article needs a lot of work, but it's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those links are from Template:Sade. This article needs sources, not just cleanup. Mbdfar (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I count 19 direct (non-template) links to this article from other mainspace articles. This should not be dismissed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found four of which that are outside of the umbrella of Sade. Three where the subject has been simply placed on a list, typically unsourced, and one trivial mention in prose. Mbdfar (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll leave it at delete. Article feels too 'soapboxy' for me. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 23:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
@CREditzWiki, "Soapboxy" sounds like a fixable issue. Do you have a specific WP:DEL-REASON. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck it through since I do not. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 02:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC):[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist meets borderline notability in my opinion per significant coverage in several sources. Article needs removing excessive material, yes, but this is not a reason for deletion. Silvymaro (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He has worked with Sade among other notable acts and was apparently an integral part of creating her sound, so I want to keep the article but I can't find enough reliable secondary sources in searches to add to the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sade (band). I can find no significant and reliable media coverage of his early band Pride, his childhood inspirations are non-noatble, and his other band Sweetback is a Sade side project that has some coverage but not enough to separate it from the main band. Therefore he has not achieved his own independent notability outside of Sade, nor does he need to because he has had a robust career with them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has enough notability in my opinion. Mag2k (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus but lots of opinions so let's make one more try to see if we can come to a rough agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a good argument here that Sweetback is its own separate band. It has its own news coverage away from Sade (such as [9], [10], ); although it is often lumped in scholarly works like here. Some of the newspaper sources I added had lengthy focus on Paul Denman. Overall I think there's enough here for a stand alone article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4meter4 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2025
- Is that not the same situation as with Sade and the current AFD? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and those sources are not significant coverage of the subject being discussed. If Sweetback is found to be independently notable, WP:MUSICBIO may apply, but that is not evident or established.Mbdfar (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 this is at least enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Music Proposed deletions

Grosvenor Light Opera Company (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)
Zoo (Norwegian band) (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)
Funk automotivo (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)